Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Results for unjustified disadvantage
![Prasath Balachandariyar v Civtec Limited [2026] NZERA 302 - redundancy selection unfairly used asthma and wrist injury; compensation and lost wages ordered](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Prasath Balachandariyar was selected for redundancy after workplace health issues including asthma and a wrist injury became part of the employer's assessment. He argued the selection process unfairly used his medical circumstances and that the employer had not conducted a fair redundancy process.
Deborah Coley's agreement guaranteed at least 32 hours each week, but Bupa sought to vary that guarantee by averaging hours across a six-week roster and presented redundancy as the alternative if she refused. A later disciplinary investigation and written warning added a second strand to the disadvantage claim.
Amanda Bradley challenged FENZ's handling of her eligibility for FireSuper and the way information about that benefit was communicated after she took a newly created regional training-management role. The case focused on whether misleading or inadequate communication caused an employment disadvantage.
Packaging operator Arnold Putt challenged disciplinary action by George Weston Foods after a confrontation with his production manager about task priorities. The ERA examined both the basis for a final written warning and whether shortcomings in the way the process was communicated caused a separate disadvantage.
Hai Zheng's employment dispute with JCD concerned whether he had resigned or whether employer breaches caused his departure, together with associated disadvantage and contractual claims. The ERA examined whether the employer's conduct made resignation a reasonably foreseeable consequence.
Boya Trading summarily dismissed Mr Zheng by text on 26 May 2023, alleging that he had refused to work and abandoned his employment. Mr Zheng said there had been no warning or consultation and raised dismissal and disadvantage grievances the following month.
Mr Paetz resigned from Solly's Freight after disputes about excessive hours and the employer's failure to conduct a required pay review. He argued those ongoing breaches caused his resignation and also independently disadvantaged him while employed.
Ms Chung was dismissed by email late on Boxing Day after about 100 days of work, with the employer purporting to rely on a 90-day trial period. General performance criticisms were raised later but had not formed a fair dismissal process at the time.
